
SPEECH 

OF 

MRl'lSHMUN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

f _' •■ ,.. IM REPLY TO THE 

AfTACK OF C.J. INGERSOLL UPON DANIEL WEBSTER. 



Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. S., April 27, 1846. 



Mr. Ikgersoll, having obtained leave of the House to make a personal explanation, pro- 
ceeded to .cad a repetition of his charges against Mr. Webster. After he had concluded, Mr. 
AsHMUN asked leave to reply, but objection being- made, tlie Speaker put the question upon 
granting leave, imd it was decided in the affirmative — Yeas 125, nays 22: 

Mr. ASHMUN then proceeded as follows : 

Mr. Speaker: I thank the House for the emphatic vote just taken. I was 
very confident that the members of this House were too just, as well as too cren- 
erous, to deny me the liberty of a reply, after the repeated, deliberate, and cold- 
blooded ebullitions which the member from Pennsylvania had been permitted to 
exhibit on this floor. 

[The Speaker called Mr. A. to order.] 

1 presume, Mr. Speaker, that it has been perfectly in order for the member 
from Pennsylvania to employ the most abusive epithets while he has been speak- 
ing, and even while reading from a carefully written paper, attacks upon an ab- 
sent gentleman, and that gentleman a distinguished member of the United States 
Senate ; and it would be a little extraordinary if I may not enjoy any similar 
latitude in reply. 

[The Speaker said it was not in the power of the Chair to de-i-ide as to ques- 
tions of order as to personalities between a gentleman present and another who 
is absent ; but as between members present it was his duty to preserve decorum 
in debate, and he should discharge it.] 

Mr. AsHMUN resumed. I shall endeavor to keep myself strictly within the 
rules, but I shall also discharge my duty. I was saying, when interrupted, that 
I had entire confidence that, after the repeated, deliberate, and premeditated as- 
saults which the member from Pennsylvania had made against the Senator from 
my own State, the House would neither be so unjust or ungenerous as to refuse 
an opportunity of reply. The House and the whole country have been both 
surprised and mortified at the scenes which have recently been acted upon this 
floor. The House had, upon many occasions, been denounced in various quar- 
ters of the Union for the violations of good taste and good manners which are 
exhibited here in debate, and in the conducting of its business. But upon the 
present occasion an offence has been committed against higher obligations than 
those either of good taste or good manners. It is a mortifying and mournful 
spectacle to see this Hall converted into a theatre for these repeated and gross 
vituperations. Instead of being a Hall for deliberation upon public interests, it 
is made the vehicle of slander, and especially of slander against the characters of 
the most meritorious and distinguished public men of the nation. One would 
have supposed that the member from Pennsylvania had lived to a sufficient age, 
and had been long enough in public life, to have learnt, in some measure, to ap- 

J. & G. S. Gideon, printers. 



^:)^ec!ale the value of reputation to a public man. And is it not astonishing that, 
without any apparent adequate motive or provocation, he should make such re- 
peated, deliberate, and persevering attempts, not iu the warmth of debate, but in 
writing, with premeditation, to destroy the fame of a man who has long served 
his country in the most distinguished and responsible stations of the Govern- 
ment — a fame that is the common property and common pride of his country- 
men ? What possible motive, which can prompt an honorable man, can be ima- 
gined for this coul-se ? If this attack had been made by a young, ambitious mem- 
ber, who sought distinction to himself by assailing those who are far above him, 
there might be some semblance, if not of excuse or of palliation, yet of motive of 
some kiud, for the act. But what motive, what palliation, can be pleaded or 
imagined for a member who ha;^ been so long in public life as the author of these 
slanders ? The member has informed the House that it was upwards of thirty 
years since he first met Mr. Webster in this House. From that day to this 
has he received from him the slightest cause of personal offence ? When or 
where? I appeal to the House, 1 appeal to the nation and the world, whether 
Mr. Webster, in his speeches, in all his many and great speeches, has not been 
wholly and entirely free from personalities ? He had never been guilty of the 
least act or word which could have been possibly construed into an offence 
against tlie member from Pennsylvania, unless, possibly, there might be one 
which is rankling deep in his breast — tlie unpardonable sin of having let him 
alone ! of having never taken the least notice of him ! It may be, that a clear 
insight into the member's character may have induced Mr. Webster to have as 
little to do with him as possible. To some minds this would have been the 
deepest sting; and whether this is the solution of the course which the member 
has pursued, I leave others to judge. 

Why, then, Mr. Speaker, was it, that, on the 9lh of February last, when the 
attention of the House was engrossed with the consideration of great and grave 
questions, involving the prospects of peace and war, as connected with the Ore- 
gon question, and when that member, as chairman of the Committee of Foreign 
Affairs, was, by courtesy, permitted to close the debate — why did he, I ask, at 
such a time, instead of making a dio-nihed, statesmanlike reply to those who 
■had preceded him, and opposed the resolution whichjie had introduced, volun- 
teer to go entirely out of his way to make a personal attack upon an absent man 
— an attack wholly unconnected with the subject in hand, and in the course of 
which he put forth, gratuitously, the most injurious assertions and insinuations, 
all of which have been since proved to be utterly false and unfounded? What 
motive, \vhat palliation, or shadow of excuse, can be alleged or imagined for 
such conduct? 

Mr. Speaker, the member from Pennsylvania told us that he first met Mr. 
Webster in public life in this House thirty-three years ago. I sliould have 
thought that this allusion would have recalled recollections that should have made 
the member pause, hesitate, and tremble, before he ventured upon this course of 
vituperation and slander! Does not the member's conscience at once point to 
an occurrence in that Congress which, one would think, should have admonished 
him never again to assail a highminded an'' honorable man with his malignant 
■slanders? Does not die remembrance of that Congress bring to his mind the 
name of a gendeman of the highest talent and intelligence, the most exalted 
standing and attainments, the most chivalrous honor, and the purest principles, 
who then represented the State of New .Jersey? Need I remind him of the 
name of Stockton? That noble and highminded man was slandered to his 
face, and openly falsified in this Hall : and can it be possible that the member has 
forgotten the terrible retribution that followed — the " scarifying process" which 
was then so memorably inflicted upon the slanderer ? Tradition tells, to this day, 
of the withering, scathing, blasting torrent of eloquence which injured and in- 



%^- 



dignant virtue, in the presence of the House, poured upon the author of the cal- 
umny, until, unable longer to endure the agony that was consuming him, the 
man who had uttered the base libel left his seat, and went out of the Hall crying 
like a whipped school-boy. I should hav^e thought that this punishment, which 
so immediately followed the crime, would have proved a sufficient warning 
against the commission of a similar offence. One effect it has had. The les- 
son has not, it seems, been wholly thrown away; it has served to teach him 
never again to make his slanderous attacks in the presence of the individual slander- 
ed ! And I agree Avith my colleague, (Mr. Adams,) that the member from Penn- 
sylvania woukl not have ventured to make the assault in the presence of Mr, 
Webster. No, sir; he would sooner have bitten off his own tongue than to 
dare to suffer it to utter what it has, if that genileman had been present to hear 
and reply. But he is not here ; and for any immediate defence against remarks, 
however injurious and false, he must depend upon the feeble efl'orts of his friends 
in this Hall, and his own well-established fame. 

The long life of the member from Pennsylvania has been remarkably distin- 
guished for his slanderous attacks upon the first and purest men in the nation. 
The ruling passion again manifested itself in the case of another of the most ir- 
reprochable and incorruptible men of modern times — I refer to the late Chief 
Justice Marshall, against whom, and the associate judges of the Supreme Court 
of the United Slates, he made the charge of corruption in the decision made by 
those judges sustaining the sonstitutionality of the Bank of the United States. 
li was imputed to them that they were influenced by pecuniary personal in- 
terests, by reason of owning stock in that bank, and Chief Justice Marshall was 
compelled to resort to the humiliation of making a formal denial of the foul im- 
putation through the columns of the public press. The same habit of vitupera- 
tion and slander seems still to burn brightly in the breast of the member. Age 
throws no chill upon it ; and neither shame, repentance, nor remorse gives hope 
of change. 

The honorable member, the other day, with a boldness, and an apparent, I 
might almost say an audacious simplicity, which I have never seen surpassed, 
remarked, " that among all the hard things which had been said of him, he never 
knew his truth to be called in question !" He must, indeed, be very blind, or 
very deaf, or both, to have spoken this sincerely. Does he not know, does not 
this House know, does not all the world know, that his truth in preferring these 
•charges is the very thing which is called in question? V/hen he lias again and 
again breathed out his aspersions against the greatest and best men of the coun- 
try, the first question which every m-in wrio loves his country has put, is this: 
" Is it true?'''' But if he has been so unfortunate as not to know in what esti- 
mation his truthfulness is held — if lie has not heard it called in question hitherto, 
he must prepare himself to hear it now, in a manner that will leave no room for 
mistake. 

Sir, in what character and position does the member from Pennsylvania stand 
before the House and the nation ? He is at once the accuser of Mr. Webster 
and the witness! And as he has taken upon himself to prefer tiie charges, and 
•ofTer himself as the witness to prove them. It becomes important to inquire and 
consider who this accuser is, and what is the character of this witness. He has 
proposed to bring into this House, from the secret and confidential recesses of 
the State Department, certain memoranda of documents and records which he 
avers to exist there; and he asks us to take his statement of them npon his per- 
sonal veracity — his truthfulness — for he offers no other evidence. Whether 
such documents or records exist — whether a fair or a garbled account of them 
has been given to this House — how much is fiction, and how much is fact — alt 
this we must take upon his veracity. Now the member has given us, upon dif- 
ferent occasioiij, hi» version of 'vhat he professes to have found in the archives 



of the State Department. What have the House before them on the other side T 
The President of the United States, in answer to a solemn call for these very 
records, has, in a message to this House, declared that they are deposited under 
a seal of secrecy and confidence which was too sacred for him to break, even at 
the requisition of the House of Representatives. But tht; member from Penn- 
sylvania, with a boldness which is unparalleled, rises here in his place and does 
not blush to say to the House, that although the secrecy of the Department was 
too sacred foi tUe President to invade and violate, yet that this member has found 
a way to get at them, and he reads to the House a statement which he asks us 
to believe is a true and impartial account of them ! And we are asked to take all 
this upon the solid and impregnable ground of the personal veracity of the hon- 
orable member from Pennsylvania. Is it not then important to inquire who and 
what this witness is? 

What, sir, is the history of the transaction of which this is part ? On the 9th 
day of February, to which I have before alluded, the member from Pennsylvania 
brought before this House several specific and distinct charges against Mr. Web- 
ster. He did this in a most imposing manner — with an ominous shake of the 
head, a solemn gravity of countenance, and a significant pointing of the finger, 
that was well calculated to produce the impression that he perfecUy understood 
what he was saying, and was ready to meet the responsibility which the state- 
ment might impose upon him. The charges which he made were as follows, 
viz : 

'• Out of this controversy arose the arrest of Alex. McLeod. What he intended to state now 
consisted of facts not yet generally known, but which would soon be made known, for they 
were in progress of publication, and lie had received them in no confidence, from the best au- 
thority. When McLeod was arrested, Gen. Harrison had just died, and Mr. Tyler was not 
yet at home as his successor. Mr. Webster — who was de facto the administration — Mr. Web- 
ster wrote to the governor of New York, with his own hand, a letter, and sent it by express, 
marked "private," in which the governor v.as told that he must release McLeod, or see the 
magnificent commercial emporium laid in ashes. The brilliant description given by the gentle- 
man from Virginia of the prospective destruction of that city in the case of war, was, in a mea- 
sure, anticipated on this occasion. McLeod must be released, said the Secretary of State, <5r 
New York must be laid in ashes. The governor asked when this would be done? The reply 
WAS, forthwith. Do you not see coming on the waves of the sea the Paixhanguns? — and if 
McLeod be not released, New York will be destroyed. But, said the governor, the power of 
pardon i.s vested in me, and even if he be convicted, he may be jiardoned. Oh, no, said the sec- 
retary, if you even try him you will bring destruction upon yourselves. The governor was not 
entirely driven from his course by this representation. The next step taken by the administra- 
tion was to apjioint a district attorney, who was to be charged with the defence of Alexander 
McLeod — the gentleman who was lately removed from office — and a fee of live thousand dol- 
lars was put into his hands for the purpose.'' 

These, it will be seen, are distinct allegations; but they are all false — false in 
the detail, and false in tlie aggregate ! It was true that a letter was sent by Mr^ 
W. to the Governor of New York, but it contained no such matter as the mem- 
ber averred.* But it is not true that ''Gen. Harrison had just died, and Mr. 

*The following is an exact copy of the only letter sent by Mr. Webster to Gov. Sc\vard! 
marked ''jmvale." 

(copy.) 
[Private.] Departmevt of State, 

Washington, March 17, 1841. 

Mt dear sir : The President has learned, not directly, but by means of a letter from a 
friend, that you had ex]3resscd a disjiosition to direct a nolle prosequi in the case of the indict- 
ment against McLeod, on being informed by this Government that the British Government had 
officially avowed the attack on the Caroline as an act done by its own authority. 

The President directs me to express his thanks for the promptitude with which you appear 
disposed to perform an act which he supposes proper for the occasion, and which is calculated, 
to relieve this Government from embarrassments and the country from some danger of colhsioa. 
with a foreisjn Power. 

You will have seen Mr. Crittenden, whom I take this occasion to commend to j'^our kindest; 
regard. I have the honor to be, very truly, yotu's, DAN. WEBSTER. 

His Excellency Wm. H. Seward, Governor of New Vork, Albany. 



Tyler was not yet at home, as his successor, and Mr. Webster ?i>as de facta 
the administration.'''' On the contrary, McLeod was arrested long before Gen. 
Harrison was inaugurateJ — who did not die until April — while the letter, as will 
be seen, bears date March 17 ! Nor is it true that the letter was ''sent by ex- 
press." Why, then, did the member say so, unless, by accompanying his charges 
with such a circumstantial detail, he thought to give more probability to his as- 
:8ertions ? 

Mr. Ingersoll, (in his seat.) Did I say so I 
Mr. AsHMUN. I think so. 
Mr. Ingersoll. I think not, 

Mr. AsHMUN. I have anticipated that there would be some such want of re- 
collection on the part of the gentleman, and on that account have brought with 
me the Daily Union, which contains a report of his speech, and have it now in 
my hand; and in that report is the precise statement. 
Mr. Ingersoll. The report is not correct. 

Mr. AsHMUN. Who tells the truth, the reporters for the Union or the mem- 
ber ? Was it to be supposed that the reporters for that paper came here to fal- 
sify members, and insert statements which they never made ? I heard the state- 
ment myself. He is so reported. I remember it — (many voices, " we all re- 
inemberit;") — and all the members around me concur in saying that they re- 
member it also. 

Mr. Ingersoll, (in his seat.) I remember I did not. 

Mr. AsHMTJN, (continuing.) And now when he says, with that childlike sim- 
plicity, that he never knew his truth to be called in question, this little occur- 
ance is an excellent commentary, and well worthy of consideration in this con- 
nexion. 

Well, sir, he ?aid, moreover, that the administration, of which Mr. AVebster 
was part, had paid a fee of $5,000 to the counsel of McLeod to carry on his de- 
fence. Has not this also been proved to be wiiolly false? 
Mr. Ingersoll, (in his seat.) No, it is true. 

Mr. AsHMUN. " True?" Sir, there is not one word of truth in it. On the 
contrary, if the member undertakes to bolster up his charges by the evidence 
which the President has sent us this morning, that very evidence proves it to be 
wholly false. 

Mr. Ingersoll. I did not say it was paid by the administration. 
The Speaker called Mr. I. to order for the interruption. 
Mr. AsH'4UN. I do not fear the effect of these interruptions, They will not 
disturb me from my purpose ; and the more this matter is stirred, the more truth 
will be elicited. 

The gentleman says he did not say that the $5,000 was paid by the adminis- 
tration. I put it to the honest sense of every honest man in this Hou&e if it was 
.not so stated, and so understood ? 
Mr. Ingersoll, (in his seat.) No. 

Mr. Ashmun. I did not put it to you. I appealed to every honest man iti 
the House. And I ask again, of every gentleman of honor and veracity, whether 
the member did not so express himself, and so intend to be understood.' 

Again : the gendeman alleged that Mr. Webster sent a note to the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, asking for an appropriation to cover an outfit and salary tor 
a special minister to England, to setde the Oregon question. Well, if this were 
so, what would it amount to ? Surely every 54° 40' man, instead of blaming Mr. 
W. for this, ought to thank him for moving so early to obtain a settlement of 

* Extract from Mr. I.'s speech of Feb. 8th : " The next step taken by the administration 
was to appoint a district attorney wlio was to be charged witli the defence of Alexander Mc- 
Leod — the gentleman who was lately removed from office — and a fee of ^5,000 zvas ptU into his. 
hands for that purpose.'''' 



that important question. Bat it is only important to examine this assertion as 
to its " trutli." Mr. Webster has denied it, saying that he had no recollection 
of having written any such note. The journal of that committee liad been pro- 
duced here, and contained no proof of it, and the chairman of that committee had 
denied all recollection of having received any such note; and he also says that 
it would probably have appeared upon the journal, if any such written commu- 
nication had been made. It is probably true that a verbal conversation did take 
place between Mr. Webster and Mr. Adams and Mr. Gushing, on this subject — 
and, so far as this went, I most cheerfully admit that, in substance, the statement 
may be considered as true — but there was no writing. And this circumstance 
reminds me of the anecdote of the Indian who came one day to a farmer's house, 
determined in some way to make sure of a drink at the farmer's expense. Know- 
ing that the farmer was rather surly and tight-fisted, the Indian told him that he 
had just come across a brook, nnd that near a large white oak tree which stood 
in the bend, there was a noble deer, quiedy feeding. He demanded a diam as 
pay tor the information, which the farmer readily gave him ; and the latter 
snatched his rifle and ran off in pursuit of the deer; but no deer, or track of one 
was to be found. He came back, and charged the Indian with deception. " Did 
you not see the bend in the brook ?" said the Indian. " Yes." " Did you not 
see the tree ?" "Yes — but no deer." " Well," answered tlio Indian, "there 
are two truths to one lie, and that is pretty well for Indian !" The member 
had hardly come "p to the Indian's mark, although it would not be parliamentary 
for me to apply the word " lie" — 

Mr. B. MAiiTiN called to order. 

The Si'EAKKR said to Mr. Martin, that it was diflicult for the Chair to decide 
what language was or was not in order, as the House, in allowing personal ex- 
planations, had suspended all rules ; and the Chair has already required the gen- 
tleman from .Mass. not to indulge in unparliamentary language. 

Mr. AsHMUN, resuming. I was about to say, and did say, that I did not apply 
that term to the member from Pa., because it would be unparliamentary to do so. 
His were mistakes ; and if he has spoken one accuracy to five mistakes, it is 
pretty well for him. 

Well, Mr. Speaker, these charges thus uttered on Feb. 9th, were all denounced 
by Mr. Webster as ialse, and proved to be false ! What next did the gentleman, 
from Pa. attempt to do? Did he attempt to prove them? No ! Did he retract 
them ? No ! But he informs the House that he went to the State Department 
in search of fnriher materials. It was very natiu-al, if, as he says, he has the 
free run of that Department, that he should go there ; and, following the bent of 
his inclination, he should make further strenuous efibrts which would enable 
him, with greater show of evidence, again to traduce Mr. Webster. 

The result of these further researches was manifested by the production of a 
new series of charges which he brought and read here on the 9ih of April, and 
of which he has to-day given us a new and more detailed edition, also reduced to 
writing. 

And now, sir, the first question which comes before the House and the nation— 
and it ishiglily important in enabling us to judge of tiie accuser and witness — the 
first question is, by what means, fair or foul, has this pretended information been 
extracted from the secret archives of the State Department? Again, I ask, by 
what means has tliis been accomplished ? Why, sir, this House, at the motion 
of the member himself, made a formal and solemn call upon the President to 
furnisti us with this very information as to the expenditure of the secret service 
fund. The President, after much deliberation, has sent us an elaborate message, 
explicitly refusing to comply with the call. The President has stated, that the 
Constitution and the laws, and the oath which he had taken, forbade him to ex- 
pose to any eye these secret archives. He said il'" ■ ''"'■ "a seal of confi- 



dence" upon them which he could not break, and which this House could not 
require him to break, unless it might possibly be in the case of an impeachment; 
and he has given very satisfactory reasons why this secrecy should not be vio- 
lated. And yet, after all this, the member from Pennsylvania has stood up here- 
in his place, and, with a boldness truly astonishing, proclaimed to the House 
that he has been prowling there; that he has knowledge of every thing relating 
to this subject; and that he got there all the information which he has communi- 
cated to this House! Now, I want to know how he got there ? The Pres- 
ident tells us that these records are under a seal of confidence and secrecy. Wha 
broke that seal ? The member specially exempts the President and the Secre- 
tary of State. I exempt them. I have no idea that honorable men would have 
any thing to do with such a transaction; that they would so far violate their per- 
sonal honor and public duty ! No, it was some underling that has been the base 
pander upon this occasion. No honorable man would thus suifer himself to be- 
made use of. Who, then, is it that has furnished him with the key that has 
Greened the locks 1 Or had he one of his own in his pocket ready for use ? Or 
d.d he pick the locks, and break into secret archives which the President did not 
dare to enter ? Who is the guilty agent ? If the gentleman does not reveal him, 
the responsibility of the whole thing must rest upon himself. Has any one else 
been pointed out? Has the guilty clerk been driven out of office for this great 
breach of confidence ? Has the genUeman, as a member of the Administration 
party, communicated to the Executive the name of the foul agent, in order that 
he maybe jusdy punished? No! nothing of this kind has been done! He 
takes the responsibility of the whole affair upon himself — he chooses to shield: 
his confederates, if any there were. It rests upon him. And yet the gentleman 
stated this morning, that these documents are in the keeping of one of the clerks. 
Dare he rise in his place and state who that clerk is, and whether he has been a 
party in this business ? No ! He admits, then, that he has broken in and enter- 
ed where the President, without violating his oath, cannot do; and where even a 
call of the House cannot justify him in going! Tliis is the manner in which, 
the accuser and witness confesses that he obtained his materials ! There was: 
an expression in the account which he has given of this discovery that struck me- 
forcibly. He says, that while searching in the Department for certain matters^ 
^no my great amazement, I came upon other papers,"" &,c. Again, he says^ 
*'I fell most unexpectedly upon others," &c. This descriptive language cannot 
but bring to the mind the idea of a man who has feloniously broken into a house in 
the darkness of night, and who, while groping round and searching for plun- 
der of one description, to his ^'great arnazemenf'' stumbles upon otlier that is 
more valuable, upon which he grasps and decamps — perhaps setting fire to the 
house in the hope that the confusion may cover his retreat. The member's con- 
duct seemed so stealthlike — 

Mr. Chipman called to order. 

Mr. AsHMUN said he was perfectly in order. The member from Pennsylvania 
has described the manner in which, to his amazement, he had stumbled on the 
information, and I am merely attempting to give the graphic figure a litde mor& 
life and coloring. 

Mr. Martin spoke to order, but the point was not pressed. 

Mr, AsHMUN resuming. This, then, is the history of the witness and accuser^ 
as connected with this transaction. I make no further comment upon it now, as 
there is matter of more importance to which I desire to call the attention of the 
House. It is by these means that he avows before the world, that he has been 
enabled to utter the accusations against the distinguished Senator from Massa- 
chusetts. Let us now look a little farther into his history, in order to judge o\ 
his credibility inrelation to these accusations. He ha? brought an express charge^ 



among others, that Mr, Webster had appropriated the pubUc money to his own. 
personal use, and had gone out of office a defaulter. 

Sir, the member from Pennsylvania, is the last man, if the public records show 
the truth, the very last man, who, I should suppose, should venture upon stirring 
up an inquiry into official peculations! I repeat it, I should have supposed that 
he would be tlie last man to charge another with the private use of public money! 
If memory had not lost its power, the records of Congress, one would have 
thought, would h..ve stared him in the face, and would have palsied his tongue 
in attempting to speak of the improper use of public money by a man in office. 
It may be possible — is it so? — that this course had been taken to withdraw men's 
recollections and attention from his own delinquency, by making extravagant al- 
legations about the alleged peculations of others ! The member from Pennsyl- 
vania had himself once held a public office under this Government. He had 
continued to hold it until he was turned out of it for official peculation by Gen. 
Jackson, witliin the very first month of his accession to tiie Presidency. 

Mr. IIoPKiMs liere rose to order, insisting that it was not in order to go into 
charges of peculation which had their origin as far back as the administration of 
Gen. Jackson. 

The Speaker replied that the House had tolerated similar charges when made 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and ruled Mr. Ashmun in order, as they 
were acting under a suspension of the rules. 

Mr. Hopkins appealed from this decision, and a debate ensued upon the ques- 
tion of order, in which Mr. Schenck, Mr. Bayly, Mr. Adams, Mr. Went- 
woRTii, and tlic Speaker, took part. 

Mr. TiBBATS moved to lay the appeal on the table, and demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and being taken stood as follows, viz: yeas 90, nays 67. 
So the appeal was laid on the table, and Mr. Ashmun declared to be in order. 

Mr. Ashmun resuming. I had stated just before the interruption that the 
House must judge of the truth and weight of the accusation and testimony from 
the character and conduct of the accuser and witness, inasmuch as the whole 
rested upon his testimony. I had remarked that he had been himself a public 
officer, and was dismissed by General Jackson immediately after he came to the 
Presidency, for abuses connected with the management of public fur.ds. Every 
one will remember the pledge which President Jackson gave in his inaugural 
address to reform all such abuses. That member then held the office of district 
attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and one of the very first acts 
of General Jackson's administration was to reform that member out of office, and 
for the reasons already stated. I hold in my hand the volume of Executive 
documents of the first session of Congress 1839-'40, which contains a full and 
minute history of the transactions to which I allude. His term of office was 
four years. It would have expired in February 1830, and he had consequently 
less than a year of official life remaining when General Jackson came into office 
on the 4th of March, 1829. But so keenly did the old General scent out this 
iniquity, and whatever else may be said of him, no one ever doubted his charac- 
ter in this respect, that his honest indignation would not allow this person to 
remain in office for even that short remnant of time. He turned him out imme- 
diately, and appointed Mr. Dallas in his place. But, nevertheless, although he 
was removed in April, 1829, his official accounts were not closed, and the bal- 
ances due to the Government paid until 1839, ten years afterwards! Sir, in 
1836, a suit was commenced against him in behalf of the United States, to re- 
qpver the amounts due from him. He had been reported at the proper depart- 
ment as a defaulter, and he had presented a long list of enormous charges to 
affect the claim of the Government. These charges were disallowed by the 
accounting officers of the Treasury. A suit was finally commenced in i83(>v 
to recover the balance claimed, amounting to $37,000, To meet this claim he 



filed an account in offset, which contains items as monstrous as official eyes 
■ever saw. The suit came to trial in the spring of 1837, and after all his efforts, 
with all the means which he had or could obtain to sustain him, a judgment 
was rendered against him amounting to $3,985.64, almost $4,000. This judg- 
ment was for the balance due the United States, recovered about May 1st, 1837, 
and yet the amount remained unpaid for nearly two years. The first payment 
was in March 17, 1838, of about $1,800, and the next and last was January 
19, 1839. Then the balance being over $2,130 was paid. Thus it wdl be 
seen, ten years after he was removed from office by General Jackson, and two 
years after judgment was recovered against him, the account was finally closed ! 

Now, I say, if any gentleman will take the trouble — and I think that every 
one should, so that the whole public may know — to examine these documents, 
and investigate these accounts, they will find that he retained in his hands an 
immense amount of public money, and that when he was pressed to a suit he 
brought in by way of offset the most monstrous items of claim against the Go- 
vernment; and that, notwithstanding, a judgment was rendered against him by 
the court and jury, amounting to within a fraction of $4,000, and that he failed 
to satisfy that judgment for nearly two years after it was recovered ! 

How this famous account of his against the United States was made up, what 
was the character of his claims, may be learnt from these documents. It was a 
matter, much and publicly talked of at the time, and tradition still tells the story. 
One transaction disclosed in these documents deserves particular notice. It is 
that of the celebrated " Tea Cases," where the district attorney brought six 
hundred and fifty-fotir separate bills of indictment at one term of the court, 
and claimed separate bills of costs upon each. The grand jury under the advice 
and direction of the attorney returned these bills. There Avere two or three 
cargoes of tea. It was the duty of the district attorney to indict them, and one 
indictment against each cargo would have been suflficient for every purpose; be- 
cause if the law had been violated the whole cargo would have been forfeited. 
But instead of taking this course, he caused 654 separate indictments to be 
brought, for each parcel delivered at any one time. By this means the amount 
•of costs was swelled to an enormous amount, ($3,814 80!) and claimed by 
the district attorney. Now, I know it may be said that this was all legal. It 
is true that Judge Hopkinson finally allowed the claim, and his certificate is 
among the documents to that elfect ; but he does also say in the certificate that 
the case is a novel one, and that " z7 is apparent that great abuses ma?/ ie 
practised by an unnecessary and unreasonable accumulation of bills of in- 
dictment arising out of the same transaction, and Congress may find it expe- 
dient to make some provision on the subject.'''' So that while this practice was 
declared to be legal, it was pretty significandy denounced as an " abuse,'" 
against the repetition of which Congress ought to provide. A large portion of 
the claim, which the district attorney filed against the Government, consisted ot 
charges for " extra official services," as he saw fit to denominate them. These 
the judge disallowed on the trial in the most emphatic manner, and the amount 
of his claim, $35,900, was reduced to $8,800, or to about one quarter part. 

Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, (brother of C. J.,) here interposed, and asked Mr. A. to 
yield him the fioor, which Mr. A. said he would most cheerfully do. 

Mr. J. R. Ingersoll then said : I regret the necessity which constrains me 
to take any part in this proceeding. From the beginning it has been the cause 
of much pain, and I have carefully refrained iVom every thing in connexion witk 
it, except when duty has required me to give a vote. I have voted, and have 
done no more. In relation to the particular statement here made I am not at 
liberty to preserve silence. Thus far the controversy has been one in which my 
feelings of affectionate relationship were alone concerned, A ditlerent situation 
is now created. 1 was couasel for the District Attorney m the suits yiilh. th.s 



10 

United States. On the trial of the cause I was his only counsel. I know, Mr. 
Speaker, well know, the facts connected with the case. They were such as did' 
not for a moment, that I have ever heard, excite a suspicion of official or person- 
al delinquency on the part of the individual concerned in them. He had long 
held the office of district attorney. Very large sums of money had, during a 
course of years, passed through his hands. It was interesting to himself, and, 
as might be supposed, scarcely less interesting to the Government, that his ac- 
count should be settled. He endeavored repeatedly, and for a length of time, to 
bring about a settlement. His efl'urts were fruidess, no adjustment was made. 
He could not, in die nature of things, bring a suit against the Government, or 
otherwise compel what he so anxiously desired and sought. He, therefore, with 
the advice of counsel, gave notice to the proper department that he had some 
funds in his hands, and that he would require a suit to be brought against him as 
the only means of etl'ecting a final setdement ; and that, in the mean time, the 
fund should be invested for the benefit of the United States. An account of 
items was exhibited, amounting to more than a million of dollars, which he had 
officially received, and he was required to exhibit vouchers for the payment of 
them to the proper authoiily. He did so with entire clearness, and to the satis- 
faction of the judge and jury. The conduct of the district attorney during the 
whole transaction, in ni) estimation, was perfectly honorable, and never, that I 
recollect, until this moment, heard a suggesdon from any quarter to the contrary. 
It has been in a collateral manner only^ — one known especially to myself — that I 
have felt myself at liberty and under obligation to interpose. It is my intention^ 
from motives that will meet with an unhesitating response, motives of peculiar 
delicacy, to refrain, as much as possible, in the future, as I have done in the past, 
from taking any part in this controversy. 

Mr. AsHMUN resumed. I yielded the floor with the utmost cheerfulness to the 
gen'.leman from Pennsylvania, whose near relation to the other gentleman from 
Pennsylvania entided him to be heard. And his high and honorable character 
also entitles him to instant and unquestioning credit as to any matter of fact 
which he may think it proper for him to state. But, how far his opinions upon 
this subject, considering the delicate and double relation, having, it seems, been' 
counsel in the case, I leave it for the House to judge. He has not denied any 
statement which 1 have made, I agree that the documents do show that the dis- 
trict attorney did, more than once, urge that a suit should be commenced ; but 
did not the result of that suit show that the officer who had been reported a de- 
faulter was so to tne amount of nearly $4,000 ? The honorable gendeman, who 
has just taken his seat, has given to this House his opinion that the whole course 
of the attorney in those transactions was honorable ! That may be his opinion, 
but I do not think it will be assented to. I put it to the House to say, and the 
world to judge, whether it was honorable to bring 654 bills of indictment to ac- 
cumulate costs, when three or four would have accomplished every purpose of 
public justice? 

Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, (in his seat.) Did you read the printed testimony in that 
document ? 

Mr. AsHMUN. I did. It consists of a certificate of two persons who had been 
students in the attorney's office at the time, and also a certificate signed by the 
foreman of the grand jury, both of them dated some two years after the transac- 
tion. For what purpose vveie they obtained, if the conduct of the district attorney 
■was free from suspicion, and not called in question ? But every lawyer knows 
that the grand jury, in relation to matters of this kind, is instructed, counselled, 
and directed by the district attorney. In matters of form, as to the nature, num- 
ber, antl sufficiency of the indictments, he in fact controls. I ask, then, that 
upon these facts, which are beyond dispute, the House shall givu just so much 



11 

weight to the opinions which we have heard as they may think proper. I can- 
not doubt as to the judgment which the world will pronounce. 

But, Mr. Speaker, let me ask further, if the conduct of this officer was so cor- 
rect and honorable, if it was never belore called in question, why was it that on 
the accession of General Jackson to the Presidency he immediately tumbled him 
out of office in the manner before described ? This democrat — thus pure and un- 
suspected ! Why was the searching operation of reform so summarily applied ta 
him ? The plain answer is, that General Jackson had scented out the abuse ; 
and his keen sagacity at once righdy appreciated the whole case. 

Now, sir, it is by such a person, and under the circumstances which I have 
before stated, that these charges against Daniel Webster have been brought. 
They are charges of peculation, of personal and fraudulent use of public money, 
and of having been removed from office and found a defaulter. What proof» 
or shadow of proof, has been produced to substantiate these accusations? None> 
They all rest upon the assertion of the member himself alone, unsupported by 
any thing. Mr. Webster has, in the most emphatic manner, pronounced them 
to he false. The only proof which the member from Pennsylvania has this 
morning brought us, is a repetition of his own assertions. I pronounce them 
FALSE, and there is not a particle of proof to sustain them. The member has 
this morning undertaken to assert that the secret service fund was taken by Mr> 
Webster into his own possession. This, again, rests upon his own assertion. 
But it is simply and entirely impossible. It is not only not true, but, in the na- 
ture of things, cannot be true. The whole fund is under the control of the Pre- 
sident, and'not one dollar of it can be touched except by his order, or upon his 
certificate. I noticed the little by-play between the gentleman from Virginia,. 
(Mr. Bayly,) and the member from Pennsyvania, and 1 understood it very welL 
It was very transparent. The member from Pennsylvania sought very readily tO' 
exempt President Tyler from any knowledge or blame of the transaction. I un- 
derstand his purpose; but I know equally well that Mr. Tyler has said, and is 
ready to say, that not a dollar of this fund was expended except by liis direction, 
and with his approbation. And I know, further, that insidious efforts had been, 
made to induce Mr. Tyler to take ground in this matter against Mr. Webster.* 

Mr. C.J. Ingersoll. By me ? 

Mr. AsHMUN. Yes, by you. 

Mr. Ingersoll. It is a lie — the lie of a coward. 

Mr. AsHMUN. Oh! the aged Pennsylvanian — 

Mr. Ingersoll, in his seat. I'm young enough. 

Mr. AsHMUN. Yes, the aged Pennsylvanian intentionally uses words which' 
are calculated and intended to provoke me to a personal conflict, and divert me 
from my purpose. He is mistaken. I come from a section of the country that 
does not believe in duelling, nor in the use of bowie knives and pistols. We 
neither use such things, nor do we fear them. (Cries of " oh no !" and laugh- 
ter.) Let gentlemen laugh if they think fit ; they cannot in that manner disturb 
my equanimity. But if the member from Pennsylvania, or any of his abettors, 
think proper to try my courage, let them attack me, and they will soon find out 
to their satisfaction ! 

I repeat the remark which I had made when thus interrupted. I believe that 
efforts have been made to get Mr. Tyler to take part against Mr. Webster. I 
believe that when the member from Pennsylvania found that he was to fail of 
getting proof in the quarter to which he first went, he made these efforts, or ai 
least l:hat they were made with his connivance. I understand that this has been 
publicly asserted in the newspapers. I will not vouch for all that appears in the 



* Note.— See Appendix, where the testimony of L. F. Tasistro proyes this to be trvie beyoiwl. 
question, 



12 

papers; but from what I do know, nm] which I am not now at liberty to state, I 
have strong reason to believe that, in this instance, they are true. And when I 
reflect upon the means that have been resorted to for the purpose of sustaining 
this detraciion — when I hear it alleged that the secret archives of the Govern- 
ment have been broken into, I am not at liberty to doubt that other means equally 
dishonorable have been tried. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the charge that Mr. Webster used the public 
funds. The member says he took into his possession $17,000. Where is the 
proof? It rests wholly upon his assertion. He says that he has obtained it in 
the secret archives of the State Department ; and in so saying he alleges his own 
shame, for he alleges that he has been where he had no right to go, and where 
he could not go without a violation of law and honor. 

The member also professed to read extracts from a letter, which he had also 
found in the secret archives, written to Mr. Webster from F. O. J. Smith. 
How much which he has read in the hearing of the House was his own com- 
mentary interpolated, no man can tell. Those who remember the remarkable 
accuracy of the member when he undertook to give the House a version of the 
contents of a letter marked " private," from Mr. Webster to Governor Seward, 
can judge. The member adduces this letter as proof that money had been used 
to corrupt the public press in Maine. Not the Whig press, surely, for that was 
already right ; and I beg the gentleman to inform us how much it took to buy 
up the Democratic press in Maine? What is the price in the market of Demo- 
cratic opinions ? I know nothing about this matter, but I will venture to say, 
that if a thousand dollars were expended in disseminating information among the 
people, so as to enable them to judge of the propriety of adopting the conven- 
tional line of boundary, if that was the case, it would not be as bad as the ex- 
penditure of public money upon the party press in this city. The member him- 
self has voted at this session to give to the editors of the Union the whole print- 
ing of the House at prices fifty per cent, higher tlian was offered by good practical 
printers ! Blair «fe Rives, of the Globe, have both amassed fortunes out of De- 
mocratic expenditures upon the party press ; and Ritchie & Heiss are rapidly 
gathering a similar harvest. But this' charge against Mr. Webster is all idle ! 
It is without the slightest foundation, except the veracitv of the member from 
Pennsylvania. How much his is worth, I am perfectlyWilling now to leave to 
the judgment of the country. 

The notice which I have thus taken of these charges has been necessarily 
brief. Neither the time allowed me, nor the fact that they rest upon alleged 
evidence, which is secret from all our eyes, except those of the member from 
Pennsylvania, will permit me to go further into the subject at the present time. 
They will receive the notice to which they are entitled hereafter; and, if an in- 
vestigation shall be ordered, they will appear to the world as I now pronounce 
them — false and baseless.* 

Mr. Speaker, I have done all that I intended to do. I have done what appeared 
to me a duty. I have stripped the veil from imposture, and endeavored to hold 
these odious slanders and their author up to the disgust and contempt of the com- 
munity. It has been no pleasant task ; and yet I should despise myself if I could 
-sit still and hear these attacks in silence. I know that the people of my imme- 
diate constituency — I know that the people of Massachusetts, would not forgive 
me, if I did not eagerly spring to repel the slanders which have been uttered on 
this floor against the distinguished citizen of whom they are so justly proud, and 
who is endeared to them by every act of virtuous patriotism which can adorn a 

* A committee was appointed on the same day to investigate the charges made by IngersoU 
and they declared them a!), to be wholly without foundation. See Report, in the Appendix. 



13 

public man, or illustrate the character of the Commonwealth which he so nobly 
represents. 

Mr. Speaker, I know that, until humanity is purified, and mankind becomes 
somewhat changed, there may be found some few persons who may be disposed 
to countenance and uphold the member from Pennsylvania in the course of atro- 
cious vilification which he has pursued ; yet, I have hope and confidence that 
men of all parties — gendemen of honor — high-minded gentlemen, who cherish 
the character of our public men as part of the national treasure, will do full jus- 
tice to all the parties connected with these accusations ; and that they will fix a 
mark upon the forehead of their author — a mark which shall stand there, to broad- 
en, to blacken, and deepen, until repentance, long, deep, and sincere, shall ap- 
peal to Mercy to blot it out ! 



ArPENDIX A. 



The Select Committee of the House of RepresenUitives, appointed to investigate certain charges 
made by the Hon. Charles J. Lvgersoll ag-inst the Hon. Damel Webster, for official mis- 
conduct while he held the office of Secretary of State of the United States, bea; leave to report: 

That they have given to the subject ret'jrred to them a patient and laborious investigation,. 
and have collected a large mass of testimony, the result of which, only, without going into its 
details, they deem it necessary to present to the House. 

The committee, in the first place, directed their attention to the first charge against Mr. Web- 
ster — that, without the knowledge of the President of the United States, and contrary to usage, 
he had taken out of the hands of the ordinary disbursing agent and put into his own a portion 
of that part of the foreign intercourse fund, commonly known as •' The Secret Service Fund," 
and appropriated it to his own use. The committee find that, by law, this fund is committed to 
the exclusive control of the President of the United States, who may, if he think proper, keep 
the money himself, and disburse it from his own hands; or he may commit the keeping and 
disbursement of it to such agent or iigents under his direction as he may deem it expedient to 
appoint. In consequence, as the committee presume, of the many and important duties which 
necessarily constantly occupy the whole time and attention of the President of the United States, 
so as to render it very troublesome and difficult for him, in person, to keep and disburse this- 
fi:nd and make up its accounts, he has always, from the first establishment of the Govern- 
ment, entrusted the discharge of these duties to other hands. 

As the Secretary of State of the United States is peculiarly the confidential adviser of the Pre- 
sident in whatever concerns the foreign relations of the country, he would seem to be the natu- 
ral and appropriate agent for the discharge of these duties, if he could perform them without 
detriment to other public business of higher importance. Accordingly, the committee find that, 
in the administration of General Washington, the elder Adams, and part of that of Mr. .Tefferson, 
while the office of Secretary of State was held in succession by Mr. Jay, .Tefterson, Randolph, 
Pickering, Marshall, and part of the time that Mr. Madison held that office under Mr. JeflFer- 
son, the whole of this fund was, under the direction and supervision of the President of the 
United States, received, kept, and disbursed by the Secretary of State. 

In the early part of Mr. .Teflcrson's administration the Secretary of State, without any law 
requiring it, seems to have l)ecn relieved from the discharge of this duty, and the keeping and 
disbursing of this fund, under the President's direction, appears to have been passed over into 
the hands of agents, whose accounts, after receiving the sanction of the President, are settled 
at the Treasury. But no change has been made in the law or in the powers or duties of the 
President in respect to this fund from the time of General Washington to the present day. This 
change must have been made for the convenience of the Secretary of State, and not from any 
want of confidence which Mr. Jeft'crson had in Mr. Madison. 

The committee have examined Mr. Tyler, the late President of the United States. He testi- 
fied thtit when he came into the Presidency he found the foreign relations of the country in a 
very delicate condition in certain particulars, which the committee do not deem it expedient to 
specify, requiring, in his opinion, the employment of confidential agents; and, for reasons as- 
signed by him to the committee, he regarded his Secretary of State as the fittest person to select 
and employ them. Under an impression entertained both by him and Mr. Webster that this 
was the usual and jiroper mode, he suggested that the money should be disbursed by Mr. Web- 
ster; and for that purpose placed in his hands a portion of the foreign intercourse fund which 
■was then lying in deposite with Mr. Slubbs, the ordinary disbursing agent. This had not IJeeii 
done before for a long lime. A knowledge of the modern usage in respect to the keeping and dis- 
bursing lliis fund, it is not improbable, led Mr. Ingersoll into the errojieous belief that this mo- 



14 

my had come improperly, and without the President's sanction, at Mr. Webster's instance, into 
his hands. But there can be no doubt that the President had ample authority to commit to his 
Secretary the keeping and disbursins; of this money, and that he alone had a ri^ht to jud,2:e of 
its expediency. The committee find from the testimony that all the money put into his hands 
was placed there with the knowledge and sanction and by the order of the President, and so 
much of it as was necessary was disbursed in accordance with his views. A balance, not need- 
ed for the purposes contemplated, was afterwards returned by Mr. Webster to Mr. Stubbs, the 
disbursing agent, with whom, the testimony shows, there is usually on deposile a larger amount 
of money than is required to meet present demanrls. With these remarks the committee dis- 
miss this and proceed to notice the second charge. 

In diat charge Mr. Ingersoll accuses Mr. Webster with using the pubHc inoney to corrupt 
the party presses Among the agents employed by Mr. Webster, under the authority of the 
President, as above explained, was Mr. Francis 0. j. Smith, of the State of Maine. There is 
in the Department of State, among the papers relating to the secret service fund, a letter from 
that gentleman to Mr. Webster, which contains an expressioii that, unexplained, might justly 
lead to the impression tint he (.\Ir. Smith) had used the money of the Government in that way. 
The committee have fully investigated this charge. They do not deem it necessary or expe- 
dient to go into a specification of the acts of this agent, who was employed in a secret service, 
or to inquire into the propriety of employing agents for secret service withtn the limits of the 
United States, and paying them out of the contingent fund for foreign intercourse, but will con- 
tent themselves with simply remarking, that the testimony they have taken fully explains what- 
ever is of obscure or doubtful meaning in this letter, and removes every foundation for a belief 
or even a suspicion that the public money was used or attempted to be used to corrupt th(! party 
presses. This brings the committee to the third and last charge— that when Mr. Webster went 
out of office he %vas a public defaulter. 

From an examination of his accounts, it appears that, when he retired from office, there was 
of the moneys that had been entrusted to him an a])parent balance of |;2,2i)0 in his hands as 
stated by Mr. Ingersoll. The expenditure of this sum remained to be accounted for by him. 
There seems to have been delay in procuring vouchers from the agents whom Mr. Webster had 
employed for the moneys advanced by him to them. For a payment of a thousand dollars, 
which he claimed to have made out of the fund in his hands, he alleged the vouchers had been 
lost, mi.slaid, or not procured, and it has not yet been found or obtained, though efforts were 
made by him to find or procaire it. These causes occasioned a delay in tlie se'tllement of his 
accounts for some eighteen or twenty months. 

In the autumn of 1844, the period" having arrived when it was necessary for Mr. Stubbs to 
close his accounts at the Treasury, and Mr. Webster not having then procured the necessary 
vouchers, he proposed to pay the apparent balance against him, with the understanding that the 
Goyeriniient should refund to him if he subsequently procured the evidence of his payments. 
This j>roposition, which proceeded from Mr. Webster, was acceded to by the President of the 
United States. In the month of November of that year, Mr. Webster procured a voucher for 
■a payment of -jiSno, and |>aid in cash $2,090, the residue of the apparent balance in his hands. 
'This money was remitted by him in part from Boston and in part from Philadelphia. In the 
following winter he visited Washington, and, on the 1st of February, 1845, presented vouchers 
for payments made by him while in office, and not before crediteil to him, to the amount of 
$1,050, which the President of the United States directed to be refunded, and that amount was 
then repaid to him. Mr. Webster was urged by Mr. Stubbs to collect and transmit his accounts 
and vouchers, that Mr. Stubbs might close his accounts with the Treasury, but the committee 
find no evidence of jiny threat of exposure having been made by the President which induced 
the payment of the apparent balance against liim. 

If it be assumed that Mr. Webster was correct in his impression that he had jiaid the above 
mentioned thousand dollars out of the fund in his hands, and if to this amount be added the 
vouchers for $1,250, procured by him after his retirement from ofiice, making together $2,250, 
and this last amount be deducted from $2,290, the apparent balance against him,' it will show 
that the real balance in his hands when he went out of office was $40 only. On reviewing his 
accounts, the keeping of which was for the most part entrusted by him to Mr. Stubbs, the dis- 
bursing agent, the committee have been led to doubt whether on the final settlement an item of 
$500 was not by mistake carried to his credit which had been before allowed him. This error 
was pointed out to the committee by the disbursing agent, by whom the account was drawn up 
and the settlement made. He proves that it was at hi." cwn suggestion, and not at that of Mr. 
Webster, that this item was carried to jiis cre<lit in the final settlement. It is not necessary to 
go into the particulars of the history of this item and of the cause of the mistake, if one was 
made. The committee deem it sufficient to remark that no blame is imputed to Mr. Webster, 
who they are satisfied was not aware, and probably is not now, that this item had been before 
credited to him; nor is the disbursing agent, who drew up the items of the final settlement, lia- 
ble to the charge of negligence. If it be .assumed tliat this item was twice allowed to him, and 
:that the final settlement was made in all other respects correct, then, in refunding to Mr. Web- 
ster, he should have been repaid $550 only instead of $1,051). But,if Mr. Webster was not mis- 
taken in the belief that he had paid the thousand dollars above meiuioned, then the Govern- 
ment still owes him $500. 
The committee deem any comments on the above facts connected with this charge unneces- 



15 

sary. In their opinion, there is no proof in relation to any of the charges to impeach Mr. 
Webster's integrity or the purity of his motives in the discharge of the duties of his office. 
The vahie of this opinion i.s perhaps to some extent enhanced by the fact that, in their investi- 
gation, the committee, in oliservance of the usage in similar cases, have taken the testimony 
without notice to him, in his absence, without communication with liim, or explanation from 
him. In conclusion, they beg permission to remark, that their investigation has brought out 
facts (which are embodied in the testimony) connected with the foreign relations of the country, 
the dia'losure of which public policy would seem to forbid. On this subject, they entirely con- 
cur with the President of the United States in the views so fully and strongly enforced by him 
in his message at the present session, in answer to a resolution of the House requesting a com- 
munication to it of the same facts that are embodied in the testimony taken by the committee, 
and which, for reasons then assigned, he declined to communicate or make public, except with 
a view to an impeachment, and to furnish the proof necessary to attain the great ends of public 
justice. He expressed the opinion that, even in that case, the House should adopt all wise pre- 
cautions to prevent the unnecessary exposure of matters the publication of which might injur- 
riously affect the public interest. No dissent from the views of that message was expressed by 
the House. The committee, therefore, think that these facts were laid open to their view with 
an implied understanding, both on the part of the President and of the House, that they would 
be made public only in the event of an impeachment, and of their being necessary for bringing 
to justice great public delinquents. Inasmuch, therefore, as no evidence has been exhibited to 
the committee, which can lay any foundation for an impeachment, all the reasons which induced 
the President to decline to make these facts public in the call of the House, return in their full 
force against their disclosure now. 

They therefore recommend, that they be discharged from the further consideration of this 
subject, and that the testimony taken by them (which accompanies this report) be sealed up, 
endorsed " confidentitd," and deposited in the archives of the House, not to be opened unless 
by its order. And they report resolutions accordingly: 

Resolved, That the testimony taken in this investigation be sealed up by the clerk, under the 
supervision of the committee, endorsed " confidential," and deposited in the archives of the 
House, and that the same be not opened unless by its order. 

Resolved, That this report be laid on the table and printed, and that the Select Committee be 
discharged from the further consideration of the subject. 
Signed and submitted by SAMUEL T. VINTON, 

.TEFFERSON DAVIS, 
DANIEL P. KING, 
SEABORN JONES. 



APPENDIX B. 

After Mr. Ashmun had concluded his speech, a committee was appointed to inquire into the 
violation of the confidential archives of the Slate Department by Mr. Ingersoll. On the 12th of 
June, Mr. Schenck, chairman, made a detailed report of the testimony which the committee had 
taken. Among the testimony was the following — 

"Louis F. Tasistro appeared and testified as follows: 

" 1. Qnestinn by chairman. Had you ever any conversation with C. J. Ingersoll in relation to 
iiis charges against Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State ? If so, state when and under what 
circumstances such conversation was held, and what the conversation was. 

'^Jlnsiver. I was approached, one or two days after the adoption of the resolutions by the 
House of Representatives, offered by M.-. Ingersoll on the 9th of April, by a messenger or 
page, who informed me that Mr. Ingersoll wanted to see me in the committee room. I went 
there, but did not find Mr. Ingersoll. I afterwards found him reading a newspaper on one of 
the sofas or settees in front of the Speaker's chair, and to the right of the centre door. After 
some general remarks, Mr. Ingersoll said, that he had been told that I was a personal friend of 
Mr. Tyler, and in the habit of constant intercourse with him. That he knew that Mr. Tyler 
was possessed of information or facts which would enable him (Mr. Ingersoll) to substantiate 
his charges against Mr. Webster, and wished me to write to him to that'effect, so as to dispose 
Mr. Tyler to do justice in the premises. I promised I would write to Mr. Tyler, and I did 
write accordingly. This is, to the best of my belief and recollection, all that transpired between 
Mr. Ingersoll and myself. 

"9(Z Qucs<io?i. Did Mr. Ingersoll, in that conversation, say any thing about his disappoint- 
ment in procuring information in another quarter.' State his precise language, or as neai-ly as 
you can. 



16 



LIBRfiRY OF CONGRESS 

nil mil mil mil mil II 



011 895 574 2 



''•^nsjcer. I remember Mr. IngersolPs saying something about having been disappointed in 
another quarter. I cannot state with more precision what language was used upon that occa- 
sion. 

" 3d Qiiestion, by Mr. Dobbin. Name the person or persons to whom you first communicated 
this conversation of Mr. Ingersoll, and at what time and place such communication was made ; 
and whether you made it without solicitation. 

^'■Jlnswcr. I first communicated the particulars of the conversation in question to Mr. Dwight, 
in his parlor at Coleman's Hotel, on the same day the conversation took place, and in the strict- 
est confidence. The communication was made by me without solicitation, and without any- 
other object but that of obtaining the views of the person with whom I was conversing." 

Mr. Dwight testified as follows — 

" On the day after the speech made by Mr. Ingersoll in relation to Mr. Webster, in an inter- 
view with Mr. Tasistro,the subject of that speech was the matter of conversation, during which 
Mr. Tasistro said, that Mr. Ingersoll had sent a messenger to him at the Capitol ; that Mr. In- 
gersoll stated to him that he wished to see him with a view of getting him to write to Mr. Tyler 
as to the course of Mr. Webster while in the cabinet under Mr. Tyler's administration, and for 
the purpose of affording him an opportunity to vindicate his good name before the countiy, 
wished Mr. Tasistro to write to Mr. Tyler on the subject. * * * Mr. Tasistro said further, 
that Mr. Ingersoll gave as a reason for his application, that he had been disappointed in other 
quarters. At the first interview on that day, Mr. Ta.sistro communicated with me confidentially 
subsequently I requested permission to inform Mr. Ashmun; to which Mr. Tasistro assented. 
I did inform Mr. .^slimun. 

"GEORGE A. DWIGHT." 



penmailTpe* 

pH8.5 



